[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Re: Rafybri and 4 new rafsi. Suggestion for a new agglutinative style in Lojban
On Apr 26, 2:47 am, Jacob Errington <nicty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that the zo'u-construct I used at the beginning will parse,
> notwithstanding that I'm almost certain that I've seen it used before, by
> skilled lojbanists. However, you're right about the second one, that [cu]
> was from my initial idea of the sentence; removing it makes the sentence
> parse, and maintain the intended meaning.
> Nothing in there is used purely for the sake of complexity: it's just the
> way I write in Lojban.
i seki'u e'o do ba ze'e pilno lo do cusku tadji vau i'o
> The most complicated thing there is stuff like
> [CONNECTIVE BAI BO] and jai, but neither of those are really that
> complicated. Oh, and ad hoc lujvo that are 100% non-cilmo, like [kamseljmi]
> -> [ka se jimpe]. I do that for shortening, and to remember rafsi.
>
> mu'o mi'e la tsani
>
> On 25 April 2012 07:11, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Also, it seems to me- and granted I haven't seen much of your writing, so
> > I could be wrong- that you're purposefully using very advanced grammatical
> > constructs. I would suggest trimming the fat, as it were, considering I'm
> > pretty sure gleki is still a nintadni. I consider myself a middle-level
> > jbopre and I had trouble understanding you.
>
> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> doi tsani do na drani pe'i loka pilno zo zo'u
>
> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Jacob Errington <nicty...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> i doi la gleki zo'u tu'e
> >>> i je'a se nandu lo nu jai galfi lo jbobau i mi tugni la djanatyn djons
> >>> lo du'u su'o lo jbopre goi ko'a troci gi'eku'i iesa'e fliba
> >>> i la deple'u mlana .e la xorlo cu po'o zo'u snada gi'eki'ubo je'a ke
> >>> jbobau sarcu
> >>> i ta'onai tu'a zo co .eja'ebo zoi raf col raf se smuni lo do seldji vau
> >>> pe'i
> >>> i sa'e lu mi joi lo pampe'o cu simxu co kansa co zgana co nu tigni co
> >>> pendo li'u mupli tu'a zo co
> >>> i si'a zo simcolkancolzgacolnuntigycolpe'o mupli ra'oi col
> >>> i ku'i lo lujvo pe zo col so'aroi clani dukse vau iepei
> >>> i lo lujvo pe secau tu'a cy. zi'e noi ke'a se mupli zo
> >>> nunpedytigkezyzgakansi'u noi ke'a lujvo fo lo bi'unai clani tanru cu je'a
> >>> zanmau
> >>> i ja'o lo tai lujvo cu jai frili fai lo kamseljmi ki'u lo du'u so'eroiku
> >>> lo seltau cu srana lo za'umoi sumti tu'u
>
> >>> mu'o mi'e la tsani
>
> >>> On 25 April 2012 06:27, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> doi gleki do na pamoi troci lonu xagzengau lo jbobau
> >>>> to lu ko'a gasnu lonu ko'e zenba loka xamgu ko'i kei ko'o li'u smuni toi
> >>>> .i so'a jbopre ti'u lo nintadni to mi cmima toi cu troci lo se go'i
> >>>> .i da'aso'ada na snada
> >>>> .i ro go'i cu te cusku lu ko pamoi nitcu lonu cilre lo jbobau gi'e
> >>>> remoi nitcu lonu jimpe
> >>>> .i ca lonu la'edi'u mulno ku curmi lonu troci li'u
> >>>> .i puti'u lonu nanca li pamu ku la xorlo .e la.dotsaid. se steci lonu
> >>>> snada
>
> >>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>> Thinking about it, the whole "counter-intuitive" thing is actually a
> >>>>> really good reason against placing cnita1 in klama3 for nitkla. Making
> >>>>> klama3, the origin, be cnita1, the thing below, logically means placing
> >>>>> cnita2, the thing above, in klama3, the destination, making nitkla in case
> >>>>> mean, in essence "to go upwards". The reason this is counter-intuitive is
> >>>>> because it means using a word that means "down"- or at least a meaning
> >>>>> associated, "under, below, etc."- to make a word that means "up". We have a
> >>>>> word that means "up" in exactly the same way cnita means "down"- gapru- so
> >>>>> it would make more sense to use that for a "go up" lujvo. {lu ko'a gapru
> >>>>> ko'e li'u mintu soi lu ko'a se cnita ko'e li'u}
>
> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Personally, I think you're overestimating the difficulty. Most lujvo
> >>>>>> can be easily figured out without needing to "memorize" them, as long as
> >>>>>> you /have/ memorized the gismu, cmavo, and their rafsi, which you /have to
> >>>>>> do anyway/ to speak Lojban fluently.
>
> >>>>>> I don't see how it is difficult to figure out, without previously
> >>>>>> learning the definition, that nitkla means "x1 goes down from high point x2
> >>>>>> to low point x3 ...". I can see how variants could be what you conclude, as
> >>>>>> Latro showed, but you should at least be able to understand that
> >>>>>> "downwards" and "move" constitute the meaning of "nitkla", merely by
> >>>>>> knowing the meanings of cnita and klama, and also knowing the rafsi thereof.
>
> >>>>>> Also, there's this really great strategy for finding out what a word
> >>>>>> you don't know means. It's actually an ancient technique, used since the
> >>>>>> first days of verbal communication: Ask the person that said it.
>
> >>>>>> Lojban is a young language, with no native speakers (although Robin's
> >>>>>> trying to change the latter), so it's no surprise that most people have
> >>>>>> difficulties regarding concepts.
>
> >>>>>> The only time I have trouble with a Lojban word, however, is when the
> >>>>>> meaning is counter-intuitive, that is, when what it means does not seem to
> >>>>>> fit in with what is used to make it, such as me'ispe. Looking at the word,
> >>>>>> without knowing the definition, you would think it has something to do with
> >>>>>> the concepts of "marriage" and "sister", and you may even reach the
> >>>>>> conclusion that it's talking about someone who is a sister because of a
> >>>>>> marriage. This makes sense.
>
> >>>>>> me'ispe currently means "Brother-in-Law".
>
> >>>>>> My line of attack for lujvo like the above isn't to try to memorize
> >>>>>> the meaning, or to come with some addition to the language that will make
> >>>>>> it more complicated while seeming to make it more simple (any addition is
> >>>>>> automatically an increase in complexity), but to /fix/ the /broken/ word.
>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:41 AM, gleki <gleki.is.my.n...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> My suggestion for rafybri is to eliminate the need to memorise
> >>>>>>> thousands of words which makes Lojban dictionary as hard to memorise as
> >>>>>>> native languages.
> >>>>>>> If you can say {klama lo cnita} instead of {nitkla} it's ok. If you
> >>>>>>> feel {klama lo cnita} is too long to pronounce you might wanna use rafybri.
>
> >>>>>>> The meaning of lujvo is postulated. They need to be entered into
> >>>>>>> dictionaries to be clearly understood by everyone.
> >>>>>>> The meaning of rafybri is not postulated. You don't have to add them
> >>>>>>> to dictionaries.
> >>>>>>> Everyone can easily decompress them back to bridi. You don't have to
> >>>>>>> memorise thousands of words.
> >>>>>>> In some cases, though, lujvo is the best solution (take names of
> >>>>>>> plants and animals, for instance). But "to descend" is really not worth it.
>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 8:05:35 AM UTC+4, Latro wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> That's a bias in favor of klama2, which is malgli if it is
> >>>>>>>> considered to be inherent (it isn't malgli in an actual lujvo definition).
> >>>>>>>> It could just as easily be "below type-of-going" i.e. "going from below"
> >>>>>>>> i.e. "rising". This seems less obvious to an English speaker but that's
> >>>>>>>> only because of preposition omission; "going below" is "going to below"
> >>>>>>>> which is essentially symmetric with the case which favors klama3. There is
> >>>>>>>> a similar albeit less natural version for klama4, namely essentially
> >>>>>>>> "tunneling", in the physical sense.
>
> >>>>>>>> On the general topic, I think making a substantive agglutinative
> >>>>>>>> system is probably going to wind up being futile in a language like this.
>
> >>>>>>>> mu'o mi'e latros
>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeo...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 8:01 AM, gleki <gleki.is.my.n...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> At first I must say that I'm not a member of any
> >>>>>>>>>> language-developing committee (BPFK or anything).
> >>>>>>>>>> And the following is just an idea how the flexibility of Lojban
> >>>>>>>>>> can be enriched.
> >>>>>>>>>> Nobody is asked to use the following when writing or speaking
> >>>>>>>>>> real Lojban.
> >>>>>>>>>> Everything here should be marked as exclusively experimental and
> >>>>>>>>>> (.a'o) as the source for further consideration.
> >>>>>>>>>> None of the existing rules of Lojban (the baseline) is changed.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> *Rafybri*
> >>>>>>>>>> *
> >>>>>>>>>> *
> >>>>>>>>>> I always noticed how lujvo break the transparent logic of bridi.
> >>>>>>>>>> Let's look at {nitkla} which means {klama lo cnita}.
> >>>>>>>>>> Although it's much easier to learn {nitkla} rather then "descend"
> >>>>>>>>>> (in English they differ in sounding considerably)
> >>>>>>>>>> nobody can guess that {nitkla} means "descend" and doesn't mean
> >>>>>>>>>> "go in a lower position under something" without getting the translation
> >>>>>>>>>> beforehand.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I disagree. I argue that it is actually rather easy to determine
> >>>>>>>>> the meaning of nitkla.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Let us assume that nitkla is a lujvo formed from the tanru {cnita
> >>>>>>>>> klama}, which may or may not be true. {cnita klama} is a "below type-of
> >>>>>>>>> going", i.e.. "going below", i.e. "descending".
>
> >>>>>>>>> How is that difficult to figure out?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Although anybody is free to say "klama lo cnita" instead
> >>>>>>>>>> it will lead to lengthier speech.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> What I suggest is to glue bridi together into a new form of lujvo
> >>>>>>>>>> called "rafybri".
> >>>>>>>>>> That's how it works.
> >>>>>>>>>> 1. First rule
>
> >>>>>>>>>> 4 new rafsi
> >>>>>>>>>> zve <= be fe lo
> >>>>>>>>>> zvi <= be fi lo
> >>>>>>>>>> zvo <= be fo lo
> >>>>>>>>>> zvu <= be fu
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.